QMS Magicolor 330?
Erik Johnson
Laser Printer to make b&w lineart prints and get some of my digital
imagery out of the computer. Does anyone have experience with this
printer? Reliability? How well do the images hold up in bright light or
over time? (I assume it cannot be worse than inkjet). I have some great
looking sample prints from QMS... any way to remove/dull the shininess
of the toner?
Are there any competitors to this printer? 1200dpi cmyk up to 13"x19"
with 110lb paper handling and relatively inexpensive consumables seems
hard to beat, even with the $4500 price tag. I just don't want to get
something that then regularly requires bank busting maintenance when the
warranty expires.
ps... see www.edj.net/erik/tartwork.htm for an example of the type of
lineart (though the web images are greyscale) and
www.edj.net/erik/cartwork.htm for an example of the digital stuff.
Thanks!
Erik Johnson
er...@edj.net
www.edj.net
Charles Eicher
>
>I have been considering the purchase/lease of a QMS Magicolor 330EX
>Laser Printer to make b&w lineart prints and get some of my digital
>imagery out of the computer. Does anyone have experience with this
>printer? Reliability? How well do the images hold up in bright light or
>over time? (I assume it cannot be worse than inkjet). I have some great
>looking sample prints from QMS... any way to remove/dull the shininess
>of the toner?
>
>Are there any competitors to this printer? 1200dpi cmyk up to 13"x19"
>with 110lb paper handling and relatively inexpensive consumables seems
>hard to beat, even with the $4500 price tag. I just don't want to get
>something that then regularly requires bank busting maintenance when the
>warranty expires.
Check what is the max linescreen. If its anything around 1200dpi, it probably
only runs 110 linescreen, and its probably a fixed screen in the postscript rip.
It may or may not be suitable for fineart printing. Most people wouldn't want to
produce final artwork that uses 110linescreen halftones, when there are inkjets
that look much more continuous tone.
Anyway, I haven't seen this particular model of laser printer, but I have yet to
see a printer with a copier-toner basis that's flexible enough to satisfy
fine-art demands. Most of them are particularly picky at the type of paper they
run on, and results can be mixed. A printmaker friend of mine has a huge Apple
Color Laserwriter, and she hardly ever fires it up, she mostly uses her inkjet.
Erik A. Mattila
your question. However, I think you'll be very dissappointed with the
laser printer. I'm assuming yours is rapidograph, and from what I could
see, there's probably some cross-hatching with some double and triple ott
pens. I've done this sort of work myself, and what happens when it is
digitized is that the feathery lines, which are so important to the overall
look and feel of the original work, tend to get washed out.
This is even true of medium quality off-set lithography. Not only do you
lose fine lines (often if it is originally photographed with an inferior
litho camera, but during printing you run the risk of plugging (ink filling
in on very fine details). To reproduce this kind of detail, you have to go
to the top printers who have the finest equipment. (Like a 29" Melee would
problably do a great job, but a Chief 22 would mess it up.) One thing that
you can use as a resource is the sales people at a major print company.
Just walk in the doors, ask to see a sales rep, and she/he will flood you
with very valuable technical advice, options, etc. They might even refer
you to a good 'art printing' company that uses high-class proofing presses.
As for your color work, I would recommend the Giclee (even with it's
questionable archival reputtion).
Personally, I got away from this sort of work. Not that I don't love it.
But the enormous time it takes is very difficult to recoup. The problem
with any kind of reproduction plan is that you never know if the image will
be popular enough to sell. I see in your work, for example, some very
strong technical accomplishments, but I am left rather uninspired by your
subject matter -- in my book it isn't 'compelling imagry' and it is only
questionably 'surrealistic.' Have you studied Max Ernst's montages, for
example. In my mind his work is gripping -- and it seems that every one
involves some sort of visual paradox that slaps you in the face. I think
your work has too much 'pop' culture imagery in it -- but look, this is
very subjective and please don't believe that I am trying to make any sort
of universal statements here.
Overall, I enjoyed looking at your work very much. I just think you are
facing a difficult delimna regarding what to do with it and how to recoup
the tremendous time imvestment you have in it. It looks to me like you're
going to have to consider a very high-resolution half-tone negative, unless
you want to have it engraved (very expensive, indeed -- but it would do
justice to the technique).
Another solution is to get a bigger ink-pen -- like a twig from a Cherry
tree (he he he).
Erik Mattila
Erik Johnson wrote:
> I have been considering the purchase/lease of a QMS Magicolor 330EX
> Laser Printer to make b&w lineart prints and get some of my digital
> imagery out of the computer. Does anyone have experience with this
> printer? Reliability? How well do the images hold up in bright light or
> over time? (I assume it cannot be worse than inkjet). I have some great
> looking sample prints from QMS... any way to remove/dull the shininess
> of the toner?
>
> Are there any competitors to this printer? 1200dpi cmyk up to 13"x19"
> with 110lb paper handling and relatively inexpensive consumables seems
> hard to beat, even with the $4500 price tag. I just don't want to get
> something that then regularly requires bank busting maintenance when the
> warranty expires.
>
Erik Johnson
Charles Eicher wrote:
> Check what is the max linescreen. If its anything around 1200dpi, it probably
> only runs 110 linescreen, and its probably a fixed screen in the postscript rip.
> It may or may not be suitable for fineart printing. Most people wouldn't want to
> produce final artwork that uses 110linescreen halftones, when there are inkjets
> that look much more continuous tone.
But doesn't inkjet degrade quickly with time and often require 'special' paper for
best results? My experience with my little 720dpi inkjet printer is that it isn't
all that great with lineart, as the dots are too 'fuzzy'. My 600dpi laser printer
looks much better. Is there an inkjet printer that you specifically recommend that
would be good for both? I'm more concerned about the quality of the lineart images
than the color images (but would like to be able to do both reasonably).
> Anyway, I haven't seen this particular model of laser printer, but I have yet to
> see a printer with a copier-toner basis that's flexible enough to satisfy
> fine-art demands. Most of them are particularly picky at the type of paper they
> run on, and results can be mixed. A printmaker friend of mine has a huge Apple
> Color Laserwriter, and she hardly ever fires it up, she mostly uses her inkjet.
My understanding is that one of the strong points of the QMS is its paper handling,
up to 110lb cardstock. I'd think that would be good enough to handle most
watercolor paper.
Erik Johnson
er...@edj.net
www.edj.net
Erik Johnson
> I really couldn't see your pen and ink work close enough to try to answer
> your question. However, I think you'll be very dissappointed with the
> laser printer. I'm assuming yours is rapidograph, and from what I could
> see, there's probably some cross-hatching with some double and triple ott
> pens. I've done this sort of work myself, and what happens when it is
> digitized is that the feathery lines, which are so important to the overall
> look and feel of the original work, tend to get washed out.
The pen&ink stuff primarily uses disposable Micron-Pigma pens
sometimes Sharpies. I don't like rapidographs, as they are touchy
about how you draw with them and you've gotta keep those nibs
clean (my background is architecture). I find that some images look
best when scanned/printed as greyscale (some have marker tones
over the ink) and some look best as lineart.
When you digitized your images, did you do so as 'lineart' at the
resolution of the printer, or as greyscale? I've been reasonably pleased
with the results on a 600dpi laser printer, so figured 1200dpi would be
that much better.
> This is even true of medium quality off-set lithography. Not only do you
> lose fine lines (often if it is originally photographed with an inferior
> litho camera, but during printing you run the risk of plugging (ink filling
> in on very fine details). To reproduce this kind of detail, you have to go
> to the top printers who have the finest equipment. (Like a 29" Melee would
> problably do a great job, but a Chief 22 would mess it up.) One thing that
> you can use as a resource is the sales people at a major print company.
> Just walk in the doors, ask to see a sales rep, and she/he will flood you
> with very valuable technical advice, options, etc. They might even refer
> you to a good 'art printing' company that uses high-class proofing presses.
Unfortunately my budget & time for such things is limited... my 'employer'
will greatly subsidize the cost of the laser printer, as it can be used to
print
the documentation for our software, as well as flyers, etc. I'm hoping it will
serve my purposes as well.
> As for your color work, I would recommend the Giclee (even with it's
> questionable archival reputtion).
Giclee = Iris? I used to do a lot of Iris printing when I had a friend who
worked at a service bureau that had a big one... the results are excellent
(though depend greatly on the paper you use). But alas, they went belly
up. The printers are astronomically priced, and paying for prints on one is
also way too pricey for me. The prints I made 4 years ago still look as
good as they did when printed, so are certainly more archival than my
inkjet.
> Personally, I got away from this sort of work. Not that I don't love it.
> But the enormous time it takes is very difficult to recoup. The problem
> with any kind of reproduction plan is that you never know if the image will
> be popular enough to sell.
I'm not all that interested in selling work, it is MUCH easier to make money
developing software. For my digital stuff, I'd like to have a way to display
the images myself. And people do ask about prints of the pen&ink stuff,
so it would be nice to have a reasonably inexpensive avenue.
> I see in your work, for example, some very
> strong technical accomplishments, but I am left rather uninspired by your
> subject matter -- in my book it isn't 'compelling imagry' and it is only
> questionably 'surrealistic.' Have you studied Max Ernst's montages, for
> example. In my mind his work is gripping -- and it seems that every one
> involves some sort of visual paradox that slaps you in the face. I think
> your work has too much 'pop' culture imagery in it -- but look, this is
> very subjective and please don't believe that I am trying to make any sort
> of universal statements here.
To each his own I suppose. I think that you cannot judge the pen&ink work
without seeing at full 20"x32" originals (if only I did have an iris printer!).
And I'm sure there are a lot of 'pop' references among other things in the
500+ images on my website. I am a product of my times I suppose. But
there is a lot of variety, so I'm sure that you can find references to just
about
anything.
> Overall, I enjoyed looking at your work very much. I just think you are
> facing a difficult delimna regarding what to do with it and how to recoup
> the tremendous time imvestment you have in it. It looks to me like you're
> going to have to consider a very high-resolution half-tone negative, unless
> you want to have it engraved (very expensive, indeed -- but it would do
> justice to the technique).
I'm not looking to recoup my time investment. My artwork wasn't done as a
speculative venture, but just something I was driven to do by (?). I do have
4x5 lineart negatives and high res drum scans of a few of the big pieces (again
thanks to the friend in that old service bureau), the rest I had to (painfully)
piece
together with 8.5x14 scanner.
> Another solution is to get a bigger ink-pen -- like a twig from a Cherry
> tree (he he he).
But then I'd need bigger paper.
I'm going to go ahead and lease the printer (like I said, it will be heavily
subsidized).
I'll let you know how things turn out. I'd be happy to mail you an image or
two, to
see what you think of the end results.
Thanks for the info & feedback.
Erik Johnson
er...@edj.net
www.edj.net
Charles Eicher
>But doesn't inkjet degrade quickly with time and often require 'special' paper
>for
>best results?
You are correct. That's one of my pet peeves, people selling inkjet prints as
archival products.
>My experience with my little 720dpi inkjet printer is that it isn't
>all that great with lineart, as the dots are too 'fuzzy'. My 600dpi laser
>printer
>looks much better.
Yeah, that is always a problem. I used to run an Iris doing prepress proofs, and
people were never satisfied with the quality of the text. The clients were used
to seeing 2450dpi linotronic output with crisp type. Suddenly they're seeing
text at about 600dpi on the proofs.
>Is there an inkjet printer that you specifically recommend that
>would be good for both? I'm more concerned about the quality of the lineart
>images
>than the color images (but would like to be able to do both reasonably).
There isn't any perfect solution, just a reasonable compromise. I spend a lot of
time working with the images to get them to look their best with any output
medium. For example, you can cheat some CMYK printers by doing your own
stochastic dithering instead of default halftone screens. That sort of imaging
looks much better for fine-art work (and dithered colors are pretty much
standard on inkjets).
I don't have much advice for you on selecting a printer, except to say that I am
quite satisfied with my Epson 1520 inkjet. It does excellent quality CMYK
imaging. But its not my end product. I produce my final output with conventional
color photographic methods. Most of my work is photographic, not text or drawn
imagery.
>My understanding is that one of the strong points of the QMS is its paper
>handling,
>up to 110lb cardstock. I'd think that would be good enough to handle most
>watercolor paper.
Check for a straight-through paper path, that helps a lot with stiff papers.
Even so, laser engines are notoriously finicky about paper handling. I've busted
more than one laser printer trying to feed paper that was supposed to be safe to
print..